[regarding dropping stlport4]
The changes to make the codebase ready for native STL support are done.
Builds with stlport4 enabled will continue to work as before.
I suggest to use the --without-stlport option for all new builds though:
Stlport is a great project, but the versions that OOo depended on had
been released more than ten years ago. The library improved greatly
since then from a feature, performance and standard compliance
perspective. And of course many many bugs have been fixed [1]. In their
stlport5 version they continue to improve significantly.
Platform STLs have been inspired by stlport, improved greatly too and in
the C++11 standardization process divergent views have consolidated. We
can rely on the platform STLs. I agree that the timing of the suggested
switch is not so good but the switch itself is overdue. A major version
change is the right time to do this.
[1] relevant examples of fixes that got into stlport releases newer than
the ones OOo depended on can be seen at e.g.
http://stlport.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=stlport/stlport;a=blob;f=etc/ChangeLog;hb=refs/tags/STLport-STLPORT_4_6
On 2013/05/28 2:38 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
In theory every fix can cause bugs. But some fixes are more localized
than others. Fixes with localized impact are easier to test.
Widespread fixes are harder to test, because more code is potentially
broken.
The switch was rendered possible by many little changes over the last
couple of months which got our code base more in line with C++11
expectations. Snapshots based on these changes have been and are already
extensively tested by our great QA community. The switch itself is just
another step in evolving towards a high quality release.
Additionally testing has it much easier to find issues introduced by the
switch should there be any. E.g. we have many testers and almost a
thousand automatic tests. They work on different platforms. They cover a
lot of different areas. The risk that a regression in that layer could
remain undetected is very low.
Automated testing ran its 940 autotests (in BVT, FVT, SVT and PVT) on
different operating systems for 32bit and 64bit versions. The
cross-correlation between pre- and post-switch builds is the same as the
auto-correlation for test reruns: the same tests were successful on both
sides, the same tests failed for both sides.
Herbert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
